Water, both supply and treatment, is going to be *the* issue before too long. Urbanization lowers the water demand as opposed to agriculture, but also pollutes in a different way. Lots of things are going to need to change going forward, whether it is landscaping choices, low-flush toilets, lining of canals, improved wastewater treatment/reuse, the list is huge! Hopefully, just once, we can actually get in front of a problem we see coming, instead of just kicking the can down the road–after all, if you don’t have time and money to do it right the first time, when will you have time and money to fix it?

Very much appreciate the dialog!

Richard, what return flows come back to the canal as part of drainage? Any? If not, you all have a pretty sweet deal. Additionally, are you guys on the sewer out there, or septic tanks?

To be clear, I’m not excited about the idea of the wastewater being routed into the canal, but I’m also not particularly excited about it being routed into the river, either. These are the problems that come with services. Since everyone wants to flush their toilet, we need to deal. About the PFAS example (and pollution in general), control at the source is the solution. Who is discharging all these chemicals, and why aren’t we keeping them from polluting the commons?

In an effort to placate the mayors of Eagle and Star, Mr. Burgos said, “Any recycled water project pursued by the city would include treating the water to the highest non-potable quality (Class A)”. Never mind for the moment that even Class A effluent is mandated to be accompanied by signage saying “Not For Human Contact.”

Now contrast that calculated reassurance with the following provision from the contract: “City shall attempt to obtain a waiver of permit requirements or obtain approval of State and Federal agencies to allow discharges to the canal of water less than Class A quality pending approval of discharges of Class A water.”

Simply put, if/when the City gains regulatory approval to dump Class A effluent into this 26-mile long canal serving hundreds if not thousands in three cities and two counties, it has every intention to violate the public trust even further by seeking approval to dump even dirtier and more dangerous effluent than Class A. A classic, behind-the-scenes bait & switch scheme that virtually no one who hasn’t read the contract knows about, but now you do!

Here’s another tidbit from the contract that illuminates the duration of contractual obligation for both Farmers Union (and thus its shareholders) and Boise City: “After twenty-five (25) years, Farmers may terminate this Agreement by providing at least five (5) years written notice to the City of intent to terminate. The City may terminate this agreement if Farmers is determined to be in material breach of this Agreement; or without cause by providing at least one year written notice to Farmers of its intent to terminate.” Apparently, the lack of concern for its shareholders demonstrated by Farmers Union was exceeded only by its ineptness at negotiating.

One more very-much-overlooked consideration is that the contract calls for effluent discharging of up to 16 million gallons a day of who-knows-what class of effluent into the Farmers Union Canal between April 1 and November 30 each year. The irrigation season for this canal typically runs from April 15 through October 15. That leaves two months where straight, undiluted effluent would be dumped into an otherwise dry canal for pets and wildlife to drink as it contaminated the soil and groundwater to an even greater degree than when it was mixed with canal water during the irrigation season.

Folks, when you know the facts and the actual language of the secretly-negotiated contract that Boise is now seeking to implement, you should find it apparent that this is even more outrageous and just plain wrong than most people ever suspected. Whether you are a direct or indirect user of this canal or not, please join with those of us opposing the implementation of this scheme by voicing your concern to the mayor and council of Boise, as well as attending virtually or in person the public hearing currently scheduled for 6PM on Tuesday, Sept. 15 at Boise City Hall.

The $50,000 per year “blood money” that Farmers Union Ditch Co. negotiated to receive from the City of Boise in exchange for allowing the City to contaminate the canal that Farmers manages is not remotely worth the risk it poses to the health and safety of a huge number of homeowners, farmers, organic gardeners, livestock-raisers, golf courses, schools, and others who indirectly consume agricultural products irrigated with this water. THIS MUST BE STOPPED!

I’m not sure what you mean by questioning whether Farmers Union Canal ‘is there to provide’ a significant source of municipal water to Eagle. The canal predated almost all of Eagle’s current population, and the City of Eagle, and Eagle Water, have multiple wells that are down- gradient of the canal. How quickly that influences the aquifer these wells tap into is an appropriate question — but in general, because the canal is on the high ground and above the wells, it is an issue of when and not if, depending on the permeability of various clay layers etc. I only took one hydrology class in grad school so I won’t pretend to know more than that.
Of course, one could similarly ask — is the Santa Ana River there to provide a source of drinking water for Orange County? The answer is perhaps a matter of philosophy. However, PFAS contamination from municipal wastewater discharge upstream has made its way from that river into the aquifer Orange County taps for its municipal water. The same principle may well apply to Eagle municipal water.
Activated carbon does a decent job removing many chemical contaminants — pharmaceuticals as well as PFAS, though how efficiently depends on the length of the carbon chain and head group for PFAS. I’m not expert on this, but activated carbon is used to remove PFAS from groundwater. However, it isn’t cheap — and it would be appropriate for the chemical manufacturers to pay for any needed removal, as is happening elsewhere via lawsuits.
By the way, I’ve been told by an employee that some Suez water does come directly from the river, though upstream of the sewage treatment plants. I would think even the deeper wells are Boise River water — just older water that predates our contamination.
I am not thrilled by Boise municipal water (Suez) which requires substantial chlorination. It tastes better than what I drank grad school in L.A., but I find it almost undrinkable compared to well water. However, I guess that depends partly on where you live in Boise — it certainly did in L.A.. Eagle Water clients get less chlorination and, they say, much better tasting water.

Thanks for the interest and questions. BTW — I hope your neighborhood is closely following the fate of the Ada County Fairgrounds, for obvious reasons.